From roserba at cgi.interbusiness.it Mon Jun 10 17:13:42 1996 From: roserba at cgi.interbusiness.it (Nicola Roserba) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 17:13:42 +0200 Subject: BUG ON BIND 4.9.2? Message-ID: <9606101513.AA01132@cgi.interbusiness.it.interbusiness.it> Hello there. I'm Nicola Roserba and I work on Interbusiness, Italy. I wish to let you know that I've probably found a bug on the Bind 4.9.2. If you define new machines on a zone in this way: machine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.001 anothermachine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.002 and then you query that zone, in this way: host -avl domain.something authoritative-DNS-for-that-domain you'll probably receive this: machine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.wrong-IP anothermachine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.wrong-IP. "wrong-IP" means that you will receive a different last byte in IP address for example: machine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.4 If you remove the zeroes in the last byte of the zone where you define the machine, like this: machine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.1 anothermachine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.2 the DNS will amswer correctly. So it seems like the BIND doesn't appreciate the zeroes in a IP address definition. I can't find errors in my BIND configuration so I think this is a bug. Do you agree? Bye _____________________________________________________________________________ ,=======>-------. ,-------|------. | Centro Gestione | `------|--------' INTERBUSINESS ING. NICOLA ROSERBA `-------<======' __________________________/\_______________ Phone: +39-6-36889293 __________________________/\___ Fax: +39-6-33659922 __________________________/\___T E L E C O M roserba at cgi.interbusiness.it __________________________/\__________Italia_________________________________ From bmanning at ISI.EDU Mon Jun 10 18:17:47 1996 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:17:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BUG ON BIND 4.9.2? In-Reply-To: <9606101513.AA01132@cgi.interbusiness.it.interbusiness.it> from "Nicola Roserba" at Jun 10, 96 05:13:42 pm Message-ID: <199606101617.AA04459@zed.isi.edu> > machine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.001 > anothermachine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.002 > > "wrong-IP" means that you will receive a different last byte in IP address > for example: > > machine.domain.something IN A 194.243.100.4 > > So it seems like the BIND doesn't appreciate the zeroes in a IP address > definition. > This is not a bug. Bind considers leading zeros be represent octal information. Therefore, 002 != 2. Not a bug. A feature. Not all numbers are decimal. -- --bill From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Mon Jun 10 18:22:44 1996 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:22:44 +0200 Subject: BUG ON BIND 4.9.2? In-Reply-To: "Your message of Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:17:47 -0700 (PDT) " <199606101617.AA04459@zed.isi.edu> Message-ID: <9606101622.AA14922=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> This is not a bug. Bind considers leading zeros be represent octal information. Therefore, 002 != 2. Not a bug. A feature. Not all numbers are decimal. True, but what's the difference between octal 002 and decimal 2 (and if you like, hexadecimal 0x2)? Piet From bmanning at ISI.EDU Mon Jun 10 19:21:38 1996 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BUG ON BIND 4.9.2? In-Reply-To: <9606101622.AA14922=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> from "Piet Beertema" at Jun 10, 96 06:22:44 pm Message-ID: <199606101721.AA04552@zed.isi.edu> > > This is not a bug. Bind considers leading zeros be represent > octal information. Therefore, 002 != 2. > Not a bug. A feature. Not all numbers are decimal. > True, but what's the difference between octal 002 > and decimal 2 (and if you like, hexadecimal 0x2)? > > > Piet > I guess it depends on your calculator. 2 != 02 != 002 on my desktop TI. -- --bill From jhma at EU.net Mon Jun 10 19:32:26 1996 From: jhma at EU.net (James Aldridge) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:32:26 +0200 Subject: BUG ON BIND 4.9.2? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:13:42 +0200." <9606101513.AA01132@cgi.interbusiness.it.interbusiness.it> Message-ID: <199606101732.TAA10472@aegir.EU.net> In message <9606101513.AA01132 at cgi.interbusiness.it.interbusiness.it> you write : > So it seems like the BIND doesn't appreciate the zeroes in a IP address > definition. > > I can't find errors in my BIND configuration so I think this is a bug. > Do you agree? Using 001 and 002 was not a good example to choose ;-) This is more of a feature than a bug. Bind (like many other programs) uses the convention that octal numbers start with a leading "0" and hexadecimal numbers start with a leading "0x" to allow you to write things like localhost IN A 0x7f.000.000.1 in your zone files should you so wish. James ======= ___ === James Aldridge, Network Engineer, ====== / / / ___ ____ _/_ ==== EUnet Communications Services BV ===== /--- / / / / /___/ / ===== Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL ==== /___ /___/ / / /___ /_ ====== Tel. +31 20 6233803; Fax. +31 20 6224657 === ======= [ 24hr emergency number +31 20 4210865 ] From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 20 12:03:33 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:03:33 +0200 Subject: International Top Level Domains Message-ID: <199606201003.KAA24261@kantoor.ripe.net> Interesting reading is: -------- draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt J. Postel ISI June 1996 New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt ---------- which can be found at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/internet-drafts/draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt I believe RIPE has a position on these issues and it should be communicated to IANA. Daniel From mnorris at dalkey.hea.ie Thu Jun 20 14:03:48 1996 From: mnorris at dalkey.hea.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 13:03:48 +0100 Subject: International Top Level Domains In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jun 96 12:03:33 +0200." <199606201003.KAA24261@kantoor.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9606201203.AA06220@dalkey.hea.ie> >I believe RIPE has a position on these issues >and it should be communicated to IANA. Indeed we have, and it is hardly reflected in the draft. The case for more TLDs is largely based on vague and unattributed generalisations of the "there is a perceived need..." and "it is considered undesirable..." variety. More ominously, we are told that "market forces dictate...". If "the market" is to govern the Internet, and dictatorship is its avowed form of governance, then it is pointless to circulate drafts, let alone comment on them. The draft selects some arguments against its case, but these are largely straw men. Also, there is no consideration of alternatives to the .com problem (let's face it, that's what this is all about), such as its proper use and the use of country TLDs. Whatever about the predominance of "market forces", I hope that RIPE can, in commenting on this draft, convey the strong and very constructive views of its members, particularly as expressed at January's meeting (RIPE-23). Regards. Mike Norris From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Thu Jun 20 14:20:22 1996 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:20:22 +0200 Subject: International Top Level Domains In-Reply-To: "Your message of Thu, 20 Jun 96 13:03:48 +0100 " <9606201203.AA06220@dalkey.hea.ie> Message-ID: <9606201220.AA29018=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> The case for more TLDs is largely based on vague and unattributed generalisations of the "there is a perceived need..." and "it is considered undesirable..." variety. More ominously, we are told that "market forces dictate...". If "the market" is to govern the Internet, and dictatorship is its avowed form of governance, then it is pointless to circulate drafts, let alone comment on them. Right, and the interesting, though sad, thing is that all those official "Internet bodies", who are supposed to keep the Internet *technically* healthy and running, at least *seem* to be backing this nonsense and thus to be trading in technical arguments for commercial ones. The penultimate consequence of market force dictation will be that all current 1st level domains (or 2nd level where there are "artificial" 1st level domains) will be replaced by top level domains. Back to uucp times... Piet From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Jun 20 16:06:43 1996 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 16:06:43 MET DST Subject: International Top Level Domains In-Reply-To: <9606201220.AA29018=piet@kraai.cwi.nl>; from "Piet Beertema" at Jun 20, 96 2:20 pm Message-ID: <199606201406.QAA25753@cuori.nis.garr.it> Quoting from Piet Beertema's message: > > The case for more TLDs is largely based on vague and unattributed > generalisations of the "there is a perceived need..." and "it is > considered undesirable..." variety. More ominously, we are told > that "market forces dictate...". If "the market" is to govern the > Internet, and dictatorship is its avowed form of governance, then > it is pointless to circulate drafts, let alone comment on them. > Right, and the interesting, though sad, thing is that all > those official "Internet bodies", who are supposed to keep > the Internet *technically* healthy and running, at least > *seem* to be backing this nonsense and thus to be trading > in technical arguments for commercial ones. > The penultimate consequence of market force dictation will > be that all current 1st level domains (or 2nd level where > there are "artificial" 1st level domains) will be replaced > by top level domains. Back to uucp times... > > > Piet Piet, don't you think it is the case to send your opinion, which I fully agree, on the tld-admin at ripe.net list, so that also Jon Postel can read it? Blasco ---------- ---------- Antonio-Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- From pete at sms.fi Wed Jun 26 22:15:23 1996 From: pete at sms.fi (Petri Helenius) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:15:23 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: International Top Level Domains In-Reply-To: <199606201003.KAA24261@kantoor.ripe.net> References: <199606201003.KAA24261@kantoor.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199606262015.XAA05285@silver.sms.fi> Daniel Karrenberg writes: > > > Interesting reading is: > > > -------- > > draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt J. Postel > ISI > June 1996 > > > New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains > > draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt > > Wouldn't implementing this proposal lead to increased load on the root nameservers since more TLD's would be queried? Pete From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Jun 28 11:54:02 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:54:02 +0200 Subject: International Top Level Domains In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:15:23 +0300. <199606262015.XAA05285@silver.sms.fi> References: <199606262015.XAA05285@silver.sms.fi> Message-ID: <199606280954.JAA23111@kantoor.ripe.net> > Petri Helenius writes: > > Wouldn't implementing this proposal lead to increased load on the root > nameservers since more TLD's would be queried? Yes there whould be an increase, but not really a significant one. 1) There are 184 TLDs there now: AD. AE. AG. AI. AL. AM. AN. AO. AQ. AR. ARPA. AT. AU. AW. AZ. BB. BE. BF. BG. BH. BJ. BM. BN. BO. BR. BS. BW. BY. BZ. CA. CF. CH. CI. CK. CL. CM. CN. CO. COM. CR. CU. CY. CZ. DE. DJ. DK. DM. DO. DZ. EC. EDU. EE. EG. ES. ET. FI. FJ. FM. FO. FR. GB. GD. GE. GH. GI. GL. GN. GOV. GR. GT. GU. GY. HK. HN. HR. HU. ID. IE. IL. IN. INT. IR. IS. IT. JM. JO. JP. KE. KH. KI. KN. KR. KW. KY. KZ. LA. LB. LC. LI. LK. LS. LT. LU. LV. MA. MC. MD. MG. MIL. MK. ML. MN. MO. MR. MT. MU. MX. MY. MZ. NA. NATO. NC. NE. NET. NF. NG. NI. NL. NO. NP. NZ. OM. ORG. PA. PE. PF. PG. PH. PK. PL. PR. PT. PY. QA. RO. RU. SA. SB. SE. SG. SI. SK. SM. SN. SR. SU. SV. SY. SZ. TH. TN. TO. TR. TT. TV. TW. TZ. UA. UG. UK. US. UY. UZ. VA. VC. VE. VI. VN. VU. WS. YU. ZA. ZM. ZW. 2) Any frequently used TLD NS RRs will be cached. So *this* is not a problem. Daniel